1970년대 이후 영국 “신미술사(New Art History)”의 방법론 : 클락(T. J. Clark)과 폴록(G. Pollock)의 미술사 담론의 형성과 영향

전영백 미술사와 시각문화학회 2010 미술사와 시각문화 Vol.9 No.-

방법론의 차원에서 "신" 미술사학의 혁신은 미술사의 역사에 큰 족적을 남겼고 그 이름은 이제 더 이상 낯선 용어가 아니다. 그러나 신미술사라는 명칭은 ‘새롭다’는 뜻 외에 내용적인 설명을 전달하지 못한다. 논문은 그 새로웠던 방법론을 당시 맥락에서 되새겨보고, 그것에 영향을 준 근본 사상이 구체적인 작품의 해설에 어떻게 작용하는가를 고찰하고자 한다. 따라서 이 글은 1975년부터 형성된 신미술사학의 문화적 배경과 그 담론적 토대를 고찰하는 연구라 할 수 있다. 구체적인 사례연구로 대표적 신미술사가인 클락(T.J.Clark)과 폴록(G. Pollock)의 방법론을 집중적으로 다룬다. 더불어, 90년대 이후 시각문화연구의 출현 또한 신미술사와의 연계성으로 제시한다. The name of "new art history" was turned up when Block and its seed-bed Middlesex Polytechnic held a conference in 1982 on "The New Art History?". Since the first public use of the discipline in England, it has gained many names such as "social history of art", "radical art history", "critical art history" and "post-structuralist art history". Those art historians under the name of new art history have developed a critique of the traditional art history, and pursued what could be called a "horizontal" study of an object or range of objects. That is to say, they've highlighted the social conditions under which it was made, for whom, by whom, and most importantly, how it is signified in the cultural context. They've regarded that art is not hermetic and autonomous, but bound up with the social and economic structure of its time, as well as conditioned by artistic tradition and institutions. That all sounds natural in terms of methodology of art history in these days. But it was received rather "radical" back in 1970s - to be exact, in 1975 at Leeds University when MA course under the name of Social History of Art began. It means that new art history has drastically affected on the discourse of art history for the last 35 years. This research thus has been launched especially to look into academical backdrop and intellectual influence on this "new" methodology of art history. I thought that it is necessary to take into account the British cultural background, its intellectual tendency in particular in which new art history was formed to be an established academic discipline. This paper, therefore, explores what grounds under the discourse of new art history in terms of theoretical methods and how it works to the point of reading certain artworks in specific time and space from multi-layered perspectives. Among them, Timothy.J.Clark and Griselda Pollock are the representative art historians who are dealt in detail in this research. The former is introduced along the category of Social History of Art of which theoretical backdrop is mainly from Neo-Marxism. And the latter's perspective is shown as is charged with post-structuralist theories especially of Foucault and Lacan. What Clark counts most in his sociological approach of art history is, above all, class and its social apparatus in visual representation. He has always shown however that artworks are only really intelligible within accounts that demonstrates their complex "situatedness" within many contexts of relation to other forms of historical evidence. On the other, in Pollock's case, sexual difference and its configuration in signifying network is what has been most concerned. Devoted to methodological approaches of semiotics and psychoanalysis particularly, she has been keen on what could be represented and what could not, focusing on sexuality and race as well as class. Apart from their different approaches, Clark and Pollock as new art historians have pit themselves against the dominant art-historical account of history as anaemic background or inert backdrop to study the work of art, then they are equally critical of the "mechanistic Marxist's notion that artworks simply "reflect" ideologies, social relations, and history. Clark's and Pollock's social history of art has remained focused on questions to do with the way to make sense of specific artworks. In this paper, this has been analysed in relation to the British positivist tradition, which avoided general theoretical ideas in favour of piecemeal and eclectic approaches to their subjects. Influenced by the revolutionary move set in 1968, new art history can be said to be an intellectual product of the late-sixties tolerance for left-wing and "continental" ideas which has changed the nature of academic methods of art history. Since then, traditional style scholarship such as formalism and iconography has been challenged by new art historians like Clark and Pollock who were affected by the sixties brand of marxism and post-structuralism. In this paper I attempted to show how their fundamental bases for their methodology actually work in their reading of art works. Clark's reading of Courbet and Pollock's reading of Degas were examplified as case studies among many. The issues that the new art history challenged are still in much use in most current art histories. Those are the tradition's claim to be value-free, its belief in the impartiality or neutrality of historians, its suspicion of theoretical reflection, its ignorance of aesthetics and criticism, its obsession with fact-gathering and its blindness to social structures and political conditions. Those criticism came up with the critical aspiration of the new generation of art history at that time. It seems important to trace and learn from the way new art history challenged and thus pushed the boundary of its discipline in order to cope with demands and enquiries of art history today.

신미술사 vs. 시각문화연구

강미정(Kang Mi-Jung) 서양미술사학회 2011 서양미술사학회논문집 Vol.35 No.-

This paper aims to provide an explanation of what the New Art History and Visual Culture Studies are by illuminating the theoretical positions of each area’s representatives - T.J. Clark’s social history of art and Keith Moxey’s post-structuralist art history. Even though Moxey pursued a social history of art like Clark, but since his theory of art history was so different from the Clark’s, he changed his course to ‘art history as cultural politics.’ The main difference between the two art historians’ theories lies in their conceptions of art and history. According to Moxey, Clark’s social history of art is not innovative enough because he takes the existence of a traditional canon for granted. Moxey thinks Clark’s position could subscribes to a reflection theory of culture if he doesn’t have an appreciation of the role of language in the construction of history. Unlike Clark, Moxey prefers to treat non-canonical works and focuses on the representation itself rather than the reality to which it refers. I think it is because Moxey and his colleagues has accepted post-structuralist view of history and language that they could explore Visual Culture Studies beyond the traditional boundary of art history. In short, although Clark and Moxey are all New Art Historians, when Moxey abandoned his position as a social historian of art and common-sensical concept of history, he could expand the range of the discipline and make it change to Visual Culture Studies.

스베트라나 앨퍼스에 대한 비평적 조망

김경선(J. Geong-sun, Kim) 현대미술사학회 2011 현대미술사연구 Vol.0 No.30

The character of the history of art began to be criticized for the narrowness of its range of subject matter and concentration on individual artists whom it classified as geniuses in the late twentieth century. It useful to define this change as being from the traditional study of the history of art to the study of art history. In the history of art, the subject is ‘art’, and the study is of the patterns of caution, however now, art is being increasingly perceived as a means as well as an end, and in art history the subject is ‘history’, especially social and cultural history. Here the goal of scholarship is to achieve a more profound understanding of individuals and societies, and works of art provide tangible evidence. Art history as a discipline, its new, critical and interdisciplinary methodology of art has become an intellectual advantage in a scholarly world of an increasingly permeable border between the humanities and the social sciences ; a world of relative rather than absolute quality. At present, the two most distinctive trends in the new art history are the interest in the social aspects of art and the stress on theory. The path-breaking work of Anglo-American scholars, Svetlana Leontief Alpers brings into focus the heterogeneous nature of art. She place much value on the basic art-historical notion of representation as well as circumstances and visual culture. In addition, Alpers thinks nowhere is this "transparent view of art" less appropriate, then she propose to view art circumstantially. Appealing to circumstances mean not only to see art as a social manifestation but also to gain access to images through a consideration of their place, role, and presence in the broader culture. In addition to circumstantial studies have tended to concentrate on the artist as the viewer of his/her art or as the maker of a work to be viewed. Much attention is paid to how paintings have been seen. The pressure is outward from the work. But there is another account which has to do less with how the viewer is served, than with the satisfactions of the maker. The pressure is inward, on the artist in the making. Alpers has served the art historical community excellently by raising the intellectual stakes of Dutch art in seventeenth century and its European context. It gives new horizons for the interpretation of art and the phenomenon of picture making itself. Shortly, Alpers"s methodology is an example of the centrality of art history among current disciplines by replacing a sector of the history of art within its proper context of intellectual history.

도상학의 종말 혹은 또 다른 시작? : 서양 중세미술을 중심으로 본 도상해석학의 연구동향

최경희 미술사와 시각문화학회 2010 미술사와 시각문화 Vol.9 No.-

도상학과 도상해석학의 도입과 발전상황을 16-18세기 고문화애호가의 입장, 19세기 에밀 말을 대표로 전개된 친(親)카톨릭 도상 연구, 20세기 파노프스키를 중심으로 문화의 징후를 읽으려는 복합적인 작업 등으로 나누어 살펴본다. 기독교 미술을 중심으로 하여 서양 중세와 르네상스 미술에서 많은 영향력을 미친 도상학이라는 방법론이 1980년대 이후 신미술사를 비롯, 기호학, 신역사주의, 포스트모더니즘 등의 새로운 정치적, 철학적 사조와 함께 어떻게 변모되어 왔는지 앞으로 나아갈 뱡향은 어떠한지, 비서양미술 연구에서는 얼마나 유용한 도구인지 모색해 본다. Studies in iconography and iconology have been a tradition in art history since the early twentieth century. Focus on the scholarship of medieval art reveals changing approaches from the Christian iconography of Adolphe Napoleon Didron and Emile Male to the more scientific method of the Warburg school typified by Panofsky and Saxl. As a methodology, iconology has been criticized for its inadequate attention to the social and political conditions surrounding works of art, and can be exemplified by such Panofsky contemporaries as Henri Focillon and Meyer Schapiro who remained detached from iconographic scholarship. A group of art historians whom Schapiro dubbed the“New Vienna School”attempted to present a more sophisticated structure behind scattered works of art combining the legacies of iconology and style. Concomitant with a study of style in art history, iconology has become an indispensable tool for the study of visual arts. Thanks to systematic iconographic databases compiled by German, French, and American academic institutes, a large corpus of artworks and supporting documents have been classified and identified, initially with prints and more recently with digital photographic files. Nonetheless, decorative artworks or anonymous works with few written documents have not been given adequate analysis. With the rise of new art history in the 1980s, art historians began to take a more careful look at presumptions of art history in its practice and methodologies, including ideological views of the founding fathers of the discipline. Contemporary scholars of medieval art are not completely cut off from iconographic tradition. Although they do not explicitly call themselves iconologists, they practice a more intricate form of iconology in my estimation. In the new trends of art history, one of which is most effectively represented in Michael Camille's scholarship of medieval art, researchers attempt to interpret visual experiences of the illiterate, uneducated, underprivileged, and even those persecuted by elite members of society. They incorporate many critical perspectives stemming from, but not limited to, semiotics, reception theory, social history, identity politics, and gender studies into interpretations of medieval artworks, adding more vivid and inclusive views of those who ordered, made, learned from, at times enjoyed decorated monuments, and at times suffered from powerful languages of art in pre-modern Western Europe. In order to accomplish these goals, they have also had to absorb new findings and theories in the related disciplines of the classics, literature, hagiography, and philology in addition to newer fields such as social history, economic history, film studies, gender and sexuality studies, and linguistics, to name a few. What is still crucial in Panofsky's iconology, in my view, is the“synthetic intuition” of a researcher capable of grasping a more copious amount of knowledge than in the 1930s and sensitive to his/her own epistemological background.

E. Panofsky의 미술사학에 대한 재고찰 : K. Moxey의 문화정치학적 입장을 중심으로 On the Basis of K. Moxey's Cultural Politics

강미정 서울大學校 人文學硏究所 2003 人文論叢 Vol.50 No.-

Panofsky is one of the influential figures in the field of art history. But the nature of his thinking was rarely explored until 1980s when poststructualism has been introduced into art historical discipline. His methodology and theory in art history have attracted considerable attention as he was regarded to provide a methodological system that could be said semiotic. Keith Moxey is one of the new art historians who have adopted the poststructual theories of Derrida, Lacan, and etc., and considered art history as one of the practice of cultural politics. He has examined the writings of Panofsky in order to reveal that the positivist belief of the traditional historians is no more than a myth that can not be substantiated, and to show how Panofsky invested his own personal and cultural values into his interpretation of art works. This thesis was intended to reconsider art history of Panofsky in the light of Moxey's art historical strategy that can be called cultural politics. Panofsky had contrived the methodology called 'iconology' that can be used to interpret the works of art from all of the nations and ages. He thought it could provide the universal principle for treating every artwork properly, and by using it art historians could get to reach the truth about the work. However, according to Moxey, Panofsky was not so neutral in choosing and treating his subjects of analysis that he betrayed his own ideological bias in his writings. Moxey has observed that Panofsky preferred the subjects connected with Renaissance Humanism and made a personal commitment to reason and rationality. Why did Panofsky do that? Moxey has found his answer in Panofsky's private history. German Jewish cultural identity was constituted in the beginning of 19th Century when Enlightenment ideals were valued. As a member of German Jews, Panofsky valued rationality and the educational process by which his cultural identity might be acquired. When he left Nazi Germany to the United States before World War II, he should have felt the threat of destruction of humanistic values at the hand of irrational forces. As for Moxey, historical interpretation is not the task of treating truth about past. Traditional historians share positivist position that if they are faithful to empirical evidence they can reach the truth of the subjects. Nowadays, however, many historians don't believe that objectivity of historical writing is attainable. They don't think they can elaborate narratives that correspond perfectly with the circumstances they purport to describe. Like White and LaCapra, Moxey regards as a metaphysical fiction the epistemological foundation which traditional historians have been maintaining in historical interpretations. He believes historians do not deal with what might be called the raw facts of history. Instead, he argues, historians' understanding of the past is always mediated by the texts. According to his opinion, historical interpretation is recreative dialogues between the historian and the text in question. That is to say, a historian interprets the text on his own historical horizon and inevitably reflects the values derived from his own historical circumstances while he struggles to understand the strangeness and 'otherness' of the historical horizon of the text. Rejecting positivism of traditional art history, Moxey suggests politically committed form of art historical interpretation based on the theoretical developments of structuralism and poststructuralism. He conceives of art history as a form of political intervention. According to Moxey, art historical discourse must become cognizant of the historical circumstances in which it currently finds itself. He argues that what art historians have to do is not to search for the theories that can validate our historical interpretation but rather to evaluate and to select the theoretical alternatives that are most useful for a politically informed approach to historical interpretation. In the course of searching for a 'critical theory' that assumes knowledge which incorporates the values of the circumstances in which it is created, Moxey finds several semiotic theories most useful theoretical alternatives for his art history as a practice of cultural politics. Moxey was deeply influenced by Panofsky's theoretical and practical strategies. His analysis of Panofsky's art history can be regarded as the manifestation of his respect to him. However, his interpretative strategies are differentiated from Panofsky's on several points. While Panofsky had preferred to analyze 'great' works of art within traditional aesthetic canon, Moxey left the aesthetic standards of 19th Century and tried to explore the works that could not enter the place of aesthetic canon. Unlike Panofsky who believed he had been objective in choosing and dealing with the subjects, Moxey acknowledges that every perspective including his own is ideological. In conclusion, Panofsky's iconological methodology was received by Moxey with his semiotic position in a radically revised form.

미술사에 있어서 서사의 역할

장민한(Min-Han Jang) 현대미술학회 2013 현대미술학 논문집 Vol.17 No.2

이 논문은 미술사에서 서사(narrative)의 역할에 대해 아서 단토(Arthur Danto)의 이론을 통해 분석한다. 미술의 역사기술에서 ‘서사’의 역할을 분석함으로써 미술의 역사기술의 타당성과 미술사의 다양성의 문제를 해결하고자 한다. 단토는 역사가의 다양한 개별 관심에 따라 서사가 각각 다르게 구성될 수 있다고 보고 있다. 다른 한편으로 그는 미술사에 있어서는 팝아트가 등장한 이후 미술의 서사가 끝났고 그 서사가 가능한 객관적인 실재가 있다고 주장하고 있다. 언뜻 보면 역사란 특정한 개별 관심에 따라 다양한 서사로 구성될 수 있다는 단토의 역사철학과 ‘미술의 서사’는 객관적인 근거를 가지고 있다는 단토의 미술사의 철학은 일관되지 못한 것으로 보인다. 이에 대해 필자는 ‘이상적 연대기’ 사례와 ‘서사문장’의 설명을 통해 서사가 역사의 필연적 형식이라는 점을 제시했다. 또한 필자는 단토의 미술사의 철학은 역사가의 개별적인 관심에 따라 구성될 수 있는 다양한 서사의 가능성을 부정하는 것이 아니라 ‘미술’(fine art)이 주인공이 되는 서사가 구성될 수밖에 없는 객관적 실재 구조가 서구에 있었다는 점을 주장한 것이고, 이를 근거로 단토의 미술사의 철학과 역사철학은 일관적이라는 것을 제시했다. 마지막으로 필자는 미술의 종말 이후 서구에서는 다양한 관심에 기반을 둔 각종의 미술 서사가 있을 수 있고, 이것들은 전통적인 미적 가치의 서사인 전통적 미술사와 보완 관계를 이루고 진행된다는 점을 제시했다. This paper aims to analyse th role of narrative in the history of art by means of Arthur Danto"s theory. It makes an attempt to solve the problems of the validity of historiography in art"s field and the diversity for art history. On the one hand Danto claims a narrative is diversely constructed according to narrator"s various interests, on the other hand, he argues that the narrative of art had come to an end after pop art, in which there are objective historical structures. I argue that a narrative is the necessary form of historiography by virtue of making the explanation of Danto"s ‘ideal chronicle’ and ‘narrative sentence’. Danto"s thesis don"t mean that there cannot be another narratives except Danto"s narrative, but there is one grand narrative of ‘art’ in the West before pop art because of objective historical structures in West. I argue that Danto"s phiolosophy of art history is consistent with his historiography through analysing the relations of a narrative and an interest, reality.

미술사와 교재 : 현대미술사 교재의 다양화를 위한 대안적 모색, 「현대미술사 교재의 다양화를 위한 대안적 모색」에 대한 질의, 강태희 선생님의 질의에 대한 답변

조은영 한국미술사교육학회 2005 美術史學 Vol.19 No.-

The purpose of this article is twofold. First, it examines the modern art history survey textbooks currently being used for art survey courses in Korean colleges. Secondly, it suggests some alternative ideas and methodologies to envision and rewrite the modern art survey text in order to provide a more comprehensive overview of modern art for Korean undergraduate students. More than two decades have passed since modern art survey courses were first included in Korean college curricula. But almost all the modern art texts being utilized in classrooms represent European and American art, with a focus on its white male masters and their masterpieces, while paying little or no attention to the others from the rest of the world. This situation owes much to the fact that these texts are mostly direct translations of Western texts written mainly from a Western-centered point of view. Most instructors in the academic field of art history prefer utilizing their own methods, lecture notes and visual images to any particular textbook. While this approach has some merit, many undergraduates express difficulties in approaching modern art without a textbook. New survey texts suitable for Korean students need to be developed. These texts should deal with not only the art of the West, but also that of the East, in particular, of Korea and its neighboring countries. In this era of globalization and glocalization, there should also be some introduction to diverse methodologies and perspectives including gender, race, and less-represented arts, artists, geographies, and culture.

시각문화연구의 개념적 정초에 대한 소고

김경선(Geong-Sun Kim) 현대미술학회 2013 현대미술학 논문집 Vol.17 No.1

현대미학에서 기호학(Semiotics)의 위상

이지언(Lee, Ji Un) 한국예술종합학교 한국예술연구소 2011 한국예술연구 Vol.- No.4